tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post116658988011113159..comments2016-11-30T20:44:36.586-07:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Episcopalian SchismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28864282883209250322012-10-30T21:18:08.326-06:002012-10-30T21:18:08.326-06:00I see I&#39;m a bit late getting here, but I did w...I see I&#39;m a bit late getting here, but I did want to let you know that I enjoyed your post.Snowbrushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00436087215476479042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166841284922188602006-12-22T19:34:00.000-07:002006-12-22T19:34:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I'm a bit late to be commenting on this pos...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I'm a bit late to be commenting on this post ... but ...<BR/><BR/>I am largely in agreement with you. The best solution to such struggles will necessarily result in compromise ... it will be impossible to accommodate everyone :-(<BR/><BR/>To use a metaphor, the most *divine* solution would minimize the degree of compromise. This solution is elusive ... and can only be illuminated by hindsight, which we do not presently have the benefit of, and may not in our lifetime.<BR/><BR/>In any event, the title of your post reminded me fo a <A HREF="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6631954" REL="nofollow"> auditory essay</A> on NPR. I don't find it particularly inspiring, but it does have context to your post.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you'll find it of interest.bpabbotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166657768330320342006-12-20T16:36:00.000-07:002006-12-20T16:36:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I look forward to your weekend essay. I hop...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your weekend essay. I hope it doesn't cut into your holiday preparations, if you do any.<BR/><BR/>I'm intrigued by your assertion that "People who thought that burning witches was good for them because the flames purified their soul are wrong - and objectively so."<BR/>While I have no doubt burning at the stake is not objectively good, it seems hard to objectively demonstrate flames do not purify the soul, unless you can objectively demonstrate a soul does not exist or that flames are not good for it. One could certainly state there is no objective evidence for a soul or the purification properties of fire upon it, but objectively showing there is no soul would seem as difficult as showing no god exists.Atheist Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166644251401157562006-12-20T12:50:00.000-07:002006-12-20T12:50:00.000-07:00Atheist Observer:What you say is true of some, but...Atheist Observer:<BR/><BR/>What you say is true of some, but not all. And, indeed, the very definition of prejudice is to hold over-generalized derogatory attitudes, attributing to members of a group of which it is not true.<BR/><BR/>Yes, some people base their beliefs on what counts a harm on religious premises. In this case, if they get it right, then I see no reason for substantial complaint. If they get it wrong, however - if they assert "harms" to be protected against where none exist, or deny the existence of real harms, then there are grounds for complaint consistent with the arguments I gave above.<BR/><BR/>We have conflicting opinions, but I deny that we have "nothing but" conflicting opinions.<BR/><BR/>This debate, on the objective/subjective nature of harm, is a part of he objective/subjective debate generally. I hold that there is an objective fact of the matter as to what counts as harm and that religious beliefs (and non-religious beliefs) can lead people into making mistakes.<BR/><BR/>People who thought that burning witches was good for them because the flames purified their soul are wrong - and objectively so.<BR/><BR/>People who believe that the suppression of homosexuality is harmful are wrong, and objectively so.<BR/><BR/>I tell you what . . . I'll write an essay on a theory of harm this weekend.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166641862363139252006-12-20T12:11:00.000-07:002006-12-20T12:11:00.000-07:00Alonzo,The principle of "harm to self and others" ...Alonzo,<BR/>The principle of "harm to self and others" would seem to run into a special case with religion. Religion claims the right to decalare what brings harm. You believe suppressing homosexuality causes harm. Those you condemn believe that going against the will of God as they see it causes harm to themselves and others in this world and the next. If you use nothing but the "harm" argument, you have nothing but conflicting opinions, with no reason to chose one or the other.<BR/>It would seem you not only need the yardstick of harm, but also a way to determine how to chose the most valid definition of it. If "revealed by God in His Holy Book" is as valid as developed by experience, observation, and application of reason to human desires, we have no more valid grounds to condemn the extremists than they do to condemn homosexuality.Atheist Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166625376875759372006-12-20T07:36:00.000-07:002006-12-20T07:36:00.000-07:00"Second, as I have argued in the past, a crusade a..."Second, as I have argued in the past, a crusade against irrationality is, itself, irrational."<BR/><BR/>I agree - but arguing against both moderate and fundamentalists religious believers on an equal level isn't necessarily a "crusade." It might be impractical, but it's not necessarily unreasonable.Austin Clinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15277094021436866580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166621733195438242006-12-20T06:35:00.000-07:002006-12-20T06:35:00.000-07:00Austin:My first point begins by asking the questio...Austin:<BR/><BR/>My first point begins by asking the question, "Does your ethics allow you to morally distinguish between the Episcopalian who is working to accept homosexuals versus those who condemn homosexuals?"<BR/><BR/>If the answer is "no", then this essay applies. Such thinking is as unjust as refusing to morally distinguish between the liberal who pays taxes to a government that engages in wars of aggression, warrantless wiretaps, and repeals habeas corpus, and the conservative who actually advocates and defends these practices.<BR/><BR/>A person who cannot make these types of distinctions are a part of the problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Second, as I have argued in the past, a crusade against irrationality is, itself, irrational.<BR/><BR/>Every one of us jumps to conclusions on some issue or other, saying, "Okay, on the surface, that sounds reasonable, but I don't have time to go into it in detail. There are just too many things I have to do that I don't have time to study that issue over there. So, I'll make a prima-facie surface judgment and move on."<BR/><BR/>We must do this. The cost of rationality is simply too high, so we have to use shortcuts. If we did not, we would die while we sat there using only pure rationality on all of our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Given that we must do this, the criteria to use to determine which beliefs to study in detail and which to use simpler and quicker methods on should not be "theism" vs "atheism," it is "harm to self and others" vs "benefit to self and others".<BR/><BR/>Atheists, too, must use "short cuts" in adopting some beliefs. And while their beliefs in God may be accurate, they make huge mistakes elsewhere. Importantly, they have been known to make huge mistakes in adopting beliefs that are harmful to others. They are not grounded on religion, but they are still in error, and they were still adopted using the irrational shortcuts that we must all use in the real world.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, it is injustice to condemn others for using shortcuts that all people must use - that atheists themselves use - and that many atheists actually use on the issue of whether God exists. It is more than that . . . it is hypocritical.<BR/><BR/>(Note: The fact that the philosophical arguments are all in favor of, "No God exists" does not prove that all atheists have acquired their belief by a careful consideration and understanding of those arguments. Some atheists simply stumbled upon the truth and, in a slightly different set of circumstances, would have stumbled upon theism just as easily.)Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1166614679334575992006-12-20T04:37:00.000-07:002006-12-20T04:37:00.000-07:00“They are all equally guilty. Even the moderates a...“They are all equally guilty. Even the moderates among them are guilty because, in being Americans, they air aiding and abetting any American policy we don’t like.”<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's clear enough what you mean by "guilty of" here, because different meanings can lead to different conclusions (examples might have helped). If a person says "They are all equally guilty of promoting irrational beliefs that cause problems in society, and the moderates who seem to be OK end up providing cover for the fundamentalists who are ostensibly worse, so I'm going to condemn their irrational religious theism on an equal level," then I don't think you can accuse such a person of injustice. It might be unwise on a practical or pragmatic level, but it doesn't strike me as an example of condemning both the innocent and the guilty.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if a person says "They are all equally guilty of violence and oppression, even the moderates who don't openly practice it because they provide cover for the fundamentalists, so I will condemn them all equally for the violence and oppression," then that's another story. That is unjust because <I>even if</I> the accusation against the moderates is true, they should be treated differently from those who actively work for or engage in violence and oppression.<BR/><BR/>Now, atheists who say something like "they are all equally guilty" may being doing a bad job at specifying what they mean, but it seems to me that they are have the former more in mind than the latter. If they are thinking about the former and communicate the latter in any way, then it strikes me as more an example of sloppy thinking and writing than injustice (though potentially an example where such sloppiness can end up encouraging injustice in the long run if people don't step back and take more care in what they say).<BR/><BR/>Insofar as you criticize the latter, I agree completely: if you're going to attack or condemn someone for something, be sure it's for the right thing — and if you're unsure, then qualify your statements a lot or err on the side of saying nothing.<BR/><BR/>As to the Episcopalian split: is it such a good thing? Is it not true that when bigots isolate themselves in bigoted communities, their bigotry can become self-reinforcing, more extreme, and thus in the long run more difficult to eliminate? Is it not plausible to argue that keeping them in the same church institutions will have a chance at moderating them sooner rather than later?<BR/><BR/>This isn't the first time American church institutions split - I think we could map out a lot of continuity between the dissenters today and the churches which broke away just prior to the Civil War over slavery and racism. Southern churches today are <I>still</I> the most segregated places in American society. Churches were the main ideological engines supporting slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and racism and it might be argued that the splits helped make that easier.<BR/><BR/>The pro-homophobia churches will lose just like the pro-slavery and pro-segregation churches lost; but as with their predecessors, they have it within themselves to cause the rest of us a lot of problems in the meantime.Austin Clinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15277094021436866580noreply@blogger.com